Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Joseph R. Meehan, known professionally in the world of pro wrestling as Joey Ryan, filed his second lawsuit before the United States District and Central Court of California on 9/30. Meehan is suing a woman based in Canada (PWInsider.com will refer the woman as "Canada" in our reporting), alleging that she used social media postings to defame him, hurting his ability to make money as a professional wrestler through his performances, merchandise, Patreon account, the loss of his Bar Wrestling independent wrestling promotion, his Twitch channel and Cameo video messaging.
On 9/24, Ryan filed a lawsuit before the same court against three women and then a second lawsuit against a woman (and ten additional Jane Does who may also be added as defendants) in California before The City of Los Angeles' Central Judicial District. This lawsuit would be the third one total filed by Ryan, last seen nationally working for Impact Wrestling.
Ryan's latest 34-page lawsuit features wording similar to the two previous lawsuits, including a lot of background material on Ryan, his career and social media before breaking down "Canada's" allegations against him on social media. As he has in the previous filings, Ryan again denied that anything non-consensual had every transpired between the two and alleged that "Canada" and former WWE developmental talent Ryan Nemeth's social media postings "encouraged violence to be committed on Plaintiff." Nemeth was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit noted, "On information and belief, both [name deleted] Defamatory Statement and Nemeth’s response are available to view by any person interested or who happens upon [deleted]'s Twitter timeline. Also, no statement retracting [name deleted] Defamatory Statement or denouncing Nemeth’s statement has been made by [deleted.] In fact, more threats of violence upon Plaintiff in social networking sites have been made directly or indirectly to Plaintiff."
Ryan's lawsuit alleged the following:
Defendant used at least Twitter, including on and in each of her own Twitter subscriptions, accounts, identities, and handles, to write, and thereby publish, the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein, which included, that (1) Plaintiff assaulted defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony;(4) defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.
On information and belief, defendant did use other social media websites to write, and thereby publish, the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant was fully aware that Twitter and the other social media websites used to publish defendant’s defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein had members and subscribers located worldwide and were connected to the professional wrestling industry, because defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant was fully aware that Twitter had a membership of approximately in excess of three hundred million persons and that by publishing the defamatory statements, the defamatory statements would be read by hundreds to thousands of Twitter’s membership, because defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant was fully aware that publishing the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein would reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, and that after defendant did publish the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein that the published defamatory statements did reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, because defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked.
Defendant published the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein fully aware that Plaintiff lived in Los Angeles, California and that Plaintiff was a professional wrestler and promotor in the state of California. Defendant was fully aware that Plaintiff was a principal of Bar Wrestling and that Bar Wrestling promoted wrestling matches in bars in Los Angeles, California.
Defendant was fully aware that Defendant’s defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein would cause a negative effect on Plaintiff as a professional wrestler and wrestling promotor, i.e., defendant intended that the defamatory statements would prevent Plaintiff from practicing as a professional wrestler and further wrestling promotions. In addition, defendant was fully aware that because of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff’s reputation would be damaged in the community in California and the virtual community located in the world wide-web that were related to Plaintiff’s as a professional wrestler and wrestling promotor.
It was, is, and has always been, untrue, and false, that (1) Plaintiff assaulted defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony;(4) defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.
Defendant’s defamatory statements were not privileged and Plaintiff did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements. Plaintiff, in fact, implored defendant to stop the publication of the defamatory statements. Defendant responded by repeating more statements that (1) Plaintiff assaulted defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony;(4) defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant knew and otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not true.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant acted in reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were true or false.
Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were true or false.
The hundreds to thousands of person who did read defendant’s defamatory statements on Twitter and other social media websites understood the defamatory statements to be of and concerning Plaintiff and were understood by the hundreds to thousands of persons to mean that (1) Plaintiff assaulted defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony;(4) defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.
Because of the facts and circumstances that were known to the hundreds to thousands of readers of the defamatory statements, including that Plaintiff was a professional wrestler and wrestling promotor in California, (1)The defamatory statements tended to injure Plaintiff as a professional wrestler and wrestling promotor, and otherwise injure Plaintiff whether or not as a professional wrestler and wrestling promotor; (2)The defamatory statements exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and shame by (1) persons residing in California; (2) persons involved and interested in professional wrestling and wrestling promotions; and (4) those persons using the world-wide-web interested in Plaintiff, professional wrestling and wrestling promotions; and (3)The defamatory statements discouraged others from associating or dealing with Plaintiff. Defendant knew that the listeners and readers of the defamatory statements would be compelled to republish the defamatory statements to others by word of mouth, electronic communication and through social media websites and the persons who did hear and did read the defamatory statements did republish the defamatory statements to others, because defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked. 58. Defendant’s defamatory statements caused Plaintiff to lose employment and income.
Defendant’s defamatory statements caused Plaintiff’s California and virtual community to shun him, avoid him and hate him and further caused Plaintiff’s California and virtual community to stop being his friend, stop following him, or otherwise end any, and all, connection and association to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation were harmed as a result of defendant’s defamatory statements and such reputation is continuing to be harmed because defendant continues to make the same defamatory statements as described and continues to permit the defamatory statements to go viral on social media websites.
Plaintiff sustained reputational and financial harm to his businesses, professions and occupations as a result of the defamatory statements.
Ryan has requested a jury trial and is seeking $200,000.00 per month in economic damages starting 6/21/20 based on his loss of revenue from performing as a professional wrestler, loss of merchandise sales, the shuttering of his Bar Wrestling promotion, loss of Cameo and Twitch revenue and loss of other revenue streams. He is also seeking $5,000, 000 in non-economic damages from Canada and has also asked the court for the following:
Order an injunction permanently restraining and enjoining defendant as set forth in Claim VII including: a. Preventing defendant from making and publishing the defamatory statements or any iteration of the defamatory statements as set forth above and herein; b. Ordering defendant to retract the defamatory statements as set forth above and herein; c. Ordering defendant to direct any, and all, websites that defendant posted the defamatory statements as set forth above and herein, to delete the defamatory statements; 4. Award Plaintiff his actual damages;
Award Plaintiff his costs, investigatory fees and expenses to the fullest extent provided by law; 6. Award punitive and exemplary damages against defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $10,000,000.00 by reason of defendants’, and each of them, malice, hatred, ill-will, despicable and intentional acts.
Awarding Plaintiff such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
